I think there was still the sense in some quarters back then that people [i.e.: judges, some GOP pols, etc.] might care. Had it been known at that time how little interest Obama’s shady, unvetted and fiercely guarded past/records would evoke, she might not have taken the trouble.
Re: Obama’s birthplace. I have made this point before but I don’t mind making it again. Obama did not approach the big name literary agency and request a large advance to write a book. He, a man w ZERO literary credits to his name, was approached by them. It could be argued that it happened simply on the basis of his being the first president of the Harvard Law Review ‘of color’. I don’t buy that for one instant. He was approached because of his background as a mixed racial birth in Kenya. That detail added the color and intrigue to his bio the literary agency believed would make his book a good investment.
There is no other explanation for the agency’s actions. They gave $165,000 plus numerous perks to this man who, as I mentioned, neither approached them first nor had a single publication to his name. Their published bio of him is proof of how they planned to sell his work: as a Kenyan-born, mixed race man whose career launched w his selection as pres. of the Harvard Law Review.
It’s not reasonable to believe the agency made this type of investment based on ungrounded rumors. They knew. I.e.: they knew he was born in Kenya. That is why they made the rare move of offering him a contract out of the blue. He had a very fascinating origin/trajectory—one they believed they could parlay into book sales—and one in which the Kenyan birth was central/crucial.
This is the simplest and most obvious explanation for the publication that listed Obama as born in Kenya. Not that he told a lie, but that the agency knew the truth before they even approached him. The simplest and most obvious explanation generally turns out to be the correct one, and this case is no exception.
This explanation also explains one of the most telling and significant facts that has come to light so far: the missing wk in the National Archives of foreign arrivals to HI. A wk that *just happens* to correspond w the wk Obama claims he was born. Many of the most convoluted, least provable theories floating around ignore that missing wk. Why? Why postulate unprovable theories at the expense of actual facts? The missing/excised wk is a crucial fact/clue. Any theory that ignores it is just blowing smoke.
Good analysis and two important points. Thanks to all on this thread for the interesting read.
Still disgusted in the general lack of support for Sheriff Joe from the GOP and other leading RW opinion makers.
Sheriff Joe needs a lot more support.
You are assuming publishers are intelligent individuals who vet their authors thoroughly. In my experience they are not. They’re salesmen. They could care less where Obama was born as long as the author has a good story and everyone believes it. They’re certainly not going to demand a birth certificate or send someone to Kenya to verify it.
Re the foreign arrivals - travelers from Canada would be foreign arrivals. Pregnant girls usually went to visit an ‘aunt’ when they had their baby. Canada was closer than Kenya and auntie lived right near the Canadian border.